User talk:StudentQuery

Welcome

Hello StudentQuery, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

StudentQuery, good luck, and have fun. – Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Varnell Clark

I'm writing to you with some advice here, because you are highly unlikely to get a detailed response at User talk:Jimbo Wales. In fact, your continued commentary there risks being seen as badgering, whether you meant it to be or not.

First read WP:BASIC. These are the basic criteria for a biography here. In this case, the subject fails because there is a lack multiple reliable, independent sources writing in-depth about her, i.e. she is the subject of multiple newspaper, journal magazine articles, or book chapters. There are alternative criteria if the person doesn't pass the basic criteria, (although invariably if they do pass one of these, they have also received significant coverage).

The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor. In this case the $7,500 Humanitarian Award grant from here would not really qualify. If she had won the "GlaxoSmithKline Distinguished Scholar in Respiratory Health" award, it probably would have qualified. The article and her official bios claim the "Forrest M. Bird Lifetime Scientific Achievement" award. Here is the list of winners going back to 1984. She is not on that list
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. This applies academics and to non-academics alike. There are two indicators of that. (a) Her work has been written about extensively and in depth in major sources. There is no evidence of this. One or two reviews and a few mentions in other works are not sufficient. The review of the Louisiana book was by a local genealogist in a column hosted by Claiter's. That does not confer notability on the book, especially a self-published one. (b) Alternatively she would need a citation index of literally hundreds of citations in multiple works or world-wide library holdings in several hundred of libraries. There is no evidence of the latter in WorldCat. See [1].

The problem here is that you (and your other colleagues who participated in the AfD discussion) appear to be connected with the subject in some way (colleagues, students, friends, relatives, etc.). This makes it extraordinarily difficult to take a cold, dispassionate, objective view on whether the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria, or indeed to even accept those criteria as valid. Trust me, the editors who felt the article did not meet the criteria, are all experienced in these types of discussions, as am I. I too would have come down for deletion. An AfD is in no way an evaluation of the subject's talent or accomplishments. It is an evaluation of the available evidence that the subject is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, people close to the subject inevitably react as if a deletion decision reflects the former.

My only suggestion is that if you are truly convinced that in the next few months you'll be able to find multiple published independent articles which discuss this person in depth, you work on a new article at Draft:Margaret Varnell Clark and submit it for review by experienced editors at Articles for creation. Another important tip... a biographical article needs to be a biography with a biographical narrative, not a CV or LinkedIn entry. Where was the subject born? Where did she study? What was the trajectory of her career? What have others written about her and her work? I saw the article before it was deleted and it was basically a glorified CV and frankly read like an advertisement for her services as a speaker and/or writer. I will be away for the next week. I'll keep your talk page on watch, and if you have any further questions, I'll try to answer them when I get back. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

See our policy on multiple accounts. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]